X & Anor v London Borough of Hounslow [2009] EWCA Civ 286 (02 April 2009)

X & Anor v London Borough of Hounslow [2009] EWCA Civ 286 (02 April 2009)

The Council did not owe a duty of care at common law to the claimants to protect them from the criminal acts of third parties because there was no voluntary assumption of responsibility or other special factor. The statutory framework did not create a private law cause of action for damages. The claimants' case was, in substance, a claim for breach of statutory duty or failure to exercise statutory powers, which is not actionable in private law for damages. Foreseeability alone was insufficient, and the relationship between the parties did not justify the imposition of a duty of care.

Citation
[2009] EWCA Civ 286
Parties
Claimant/respondent: X; Claimant/respondent: Y; Defendant/appellant: London Borough of Hounslow
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
02 April 2009
Procedural Posture
Appeal (civil) / Court of Appeal Judgment on Appeal From High Court (queen's Bench Division)
Outcome
Appeal allowed; judgment for claimants set aside.
Legal Topics
Negligence, Duty of Care, Local Authority Liability, Assumption of Responsibility, Statutory Duties, Vulnerable Adults, Third Party Criminal Acts, Human Rights Act 1998, European Convention on Human Rights
Tort Law Public Law Human Rights Law Negligence Duty of Care Local Authority Liability Assumption of Responsibility Statutory Duties +4 more

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 4 Authorities cited 28 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

X

Claimant/respondent

Y

Claimant/respondent

London Borough of Hounslow

Defendant/appellant

Procedural Posture

Appeal (civil) / Court of Appeal Judgment on Appeal From High Court (queen's Bench Division)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Council owed a duty of care to protect claimants from criminal acts of third parties
  2. 2 Whether the Council was in breach of any such duty
  3. 3 Whether statutory powers or duties gave rise to a private law cause of action for damages

Ratio Decidendi

The Council did not owe a duty of care at common law to the claimants to protect them from the criminal acts of third parties because there was no voluntary assumption of responsibility or other special factor. The statutory framework did not create a private law cause of action for damages. The claimants' case was, in substance, a claim for breach of statutory duty or failure to exercise statutory powers, which is not actionable in private law for damages. Foreseeability alone was insufficient, and the relationship between the parties did not justify the imposition of a duty of care.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed; judgment for claimants set aside.

Orders

  • The order of the High Court awarding damages and costs to the claimants is set aside.
  • No duty of care found; claim against the Council dismissed.